THE HIDDEN VALUE OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS GUEST EDITORIAL How Low-Bid Selection Can’t Deliver What Clients Deserve Deep foundations tell no lies. When it comes to geotechnical studies and geosite characterization efforts, the driven, drilled, bored, vibrated or punched deep foundation units will let us know if we got it right. There is no debating the findings of these steel and concrete judges. The subsurface characterization work that a geoprofessional must perform is critical to the success of every project that requires the cooperation of the ground — regardless of whether it is a shallow or deep foundation system, a dam or a groundwater remediation project. The cold hard fact is: if the subsurface is not characterized correctly, the project is headed for trouble. Survey results from over 200 geoprofessionals: “I rarely encounter different subsurface conditions during construction” Strongly Agree 2% 11% Agree 27% Somewhat Agree 44% Disagree 16% Strongly Disagree was indicated. They said that we geoprofessionals have become passive in our practice, acquiescing to the requests to do only the bare minimum necessary to achieve what the client thought they needed. Perhaps the most representative example of all of the comments was, “Many times the soils investigation is awarded based on price only, resulting in unreliable interpretations, inadequate information and little effort is put into previous uses (history) of the site.” The simple answer to this obvious dilemma is: they (the clients) deserve better; they just don’t know it. T h e s u r v e y a l s o considered opinions related to the geotechnical engi- neer’s use of technology- based innovation available to investigate the subsurface, awareness of new and advanced foundation ele- ments and construction methods, and use of technology to monitor the integrity of the final product. The responses to these questions exposed similar sentiment: engineers are too focused on providing a low price for their work in response to competitive bidding for their services. This focus can lead them to spurn the effort required to implement technology in geotechnical design, and to use only the time-honored and uncontested (also archaic) ways of documenting the proper construction. Do you expect that the geo- characterization work on your project has properly defined subsurface conditions? I attempted to get an answer to that question by surveying over 200 geoprofessionals who consult, design and build structures that require adequate geo-characterization. The majority of these experienced professionals opined that subsurface conditions are expected to differ from what Ethical Responsibility of the Engineer It is not illogical to make the case that this competitive-bidding environment poses an ethical conflict for the professional engineer. Prominently displayed in the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics (as well as in every state’s engineering regulations) is the fundamental tenant that the engineer is dedicated to the protection of public health, safety and welfare. Get it? The engineers’ ultimate ethical responsibility is to the public. They must use their important, essential and learned profession, which is often misunderstood by this “public” that they serve, with the highest standards of honesty and integrity, to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Can the geotechnical engineer maintain The cold hard fact is: if the subsurface is not characterized correctly, the project is headed for trouble. this ethical responsibility to protect the welfare of the public in a low-bid environment? One would have to consider what we mean by the term “welfare of the public” to answer that. More speci- fically, it has to do with whether this responsibility is related to minimizing the overall cost of a construction project. This is what my survey of our peers sug- gested: we must consider the well-being of our client, and their costs to construct their project, as a part of our ethical responsibility. Consider the essential requirements of a geoprofessional competing for a project when the procurement is based on the lowest fee to perform the work. It takes one, or a combination of the following: 1. An engineer or firm who is willing to collect a lower wage for their services 2. An engineer or firm who does not pay adequate attention to the quality of their work 3. A work scope that is less than the work scope offered by other bidders Perhaps there are engineers out there who are fulfilling their ethical responsibility to the public as a charity of sorts, willing to collect wages that are below the average. But that is certainly outside of the norm. In general, we all desire the same wages that the market will allow; commensurate with AUTHOR Victor R. Donald, P.E., National Director of Geotechnical Services, Terracon Consultants, Inc. DEEP FOUNDATIONS • MAY/JUN 2014 • 93
